https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361185 For service tax appeals, limitation runs from the date the impugned order is actually received or effectively communicated to the aggrieved person. Where the department relies on service under section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it must produce reliable proof of delivery; a doubtful acknowledgement card and inconclusive records do not establish valid service. On the facts noted, the appellant's claim that the order was first communicated on 23.11.2015 was accepted, so the appeal filed on 14.01.2016 was within time and could not be rejected as time-barred. The limitation objection was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for decision on merits in accordance with natural justice. en-us Wed, 30 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jun 2018 11:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361185 For service tax appeals, limitation runs from the date the impugned order is actually received or effectively communicated to the aggrieved person. Where the department relies on service under section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it must produce reliable proof of delivery; a doubtful acknowledgement card and inconclusive records do not establish valid service. On the facts noted, the appellant's claim that the order was first communicated on 23.11.2015 was accepted, so the appeal filed on 14.01.2016 was within time and could not be rejected as time-barred. The limitation objection was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for decision on merits in accordance with natural justice. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 30 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361185